Initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health training: participatory action research to understand experiences in the East Midlands.

BACKGROUND: Specialty public health training consists of 48 months of practice across the domains of health protection, healthcare public health and health improvement.With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, activity pivoted towards pandemic management and the response became a significant element of registrar practice.This research aimed to understand the impact of this shift in focus on registrars' role and training. METHODS: Participatory action research comprising (i) a reflective survey sent to all specialty registrars in the East Midlands training region and (ii) Delphi rounds with survey respondents to generate consensus and define themes. RESULTS: Sixteen (44%) registrars completed the survey with 12 (75%) participating in the Delphi rounds. The early pandemic response stages both challenged and re-affirmed registrars' role and identity in public health and training while providing unique and diverse learning and development. Underpinning these themes is a variability in experience depending on prior experience, placement and training stage. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic impacted the practice, training and home-life of registrars who were required to negotiate significant challenge and uncertainty. This original work adds to a growing body of correspondence and opinion pieces articulating the experiences and challenges of medical and public health education during a pandemic.

Evaluating an 'incident control' approach to non-communicable disease.

OBJECTIVES: This article evaluates the application of 'incident control' methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an 'incident' of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011-14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. METHODS: There were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. RESULTS: The findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of 'incidents'. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable 'incident' and 'case'.